The Problem on Offense is our Playcalling and Predictability

What happened to the gameplan of the first game when they were worried bout Romo getting sacked. Slants, three step drops, quick outs and such. They spread the defense out and were able run also. Did they all if a sudden forget that this team has a weak oline? But looking at GB tonight it seems to be a problem for not just us.

That SEA press is insanely good. We needed to be able to exploit the TE matchups to loosen them up and bide time for big plays up top, and we couldn't do it. Turns out, neither could Green Bay. That's a pretty good defense.

Green Bay lost the game. They were getting whipped up front also in the 1st half. However, they adjusted in the 2nd half and got the Hawks defense guessing. This is one way of controlling and neutralizing the passrush.

They controlled it by mixing the run with the pass on 1st down and they also used quite a bit of quick slants, play action, and roll outs. Green Bay didn't leave Rogers in the pocket to be a sitting target. They devised plays that confused the defense.

Even the announcers mentioned that "the ability to run on 1st down is neutralizing the passrush." With the Cowboys, they just continue on without ever changing the plays around.

Like I mentioned before, removing the predictability of our plays on offense will lower the penalties, confusion and the pressure on Romo. It will make this team much harder to defend because they won't know whether to run or play the pass. Garrett has done a terrible job of disguising our plays.

Green Bay was getting whipped in the first half but they adjusted in the second half because they have excellent coaching and players that don't quit. They're a much better football team than the Cowboys. Great teams are able to adjust and step up in situations like that while mediocre teams like the Cowboys fold under the pressure. That was a more jacked up Seattle team than the Cowboys faced. That team was breathing fire lucky the Cowboys didn't play them tonight.

Green Bay was getting whipped in the first half but they adjusted in the second half because they have excellent coaching and players that don't quit. They're a much better football team than the Cowboys. Great teams are able to adjust and step up in situations like that while mediocre teams like the Cowboys fold under the pressure. That was a more jacked up Seattle team than the Cowboys faced. That team was breathing fire lucky the Cowboys didn't play them tonight.

Exactly my point. They adjusted. They didn't stick to the same gameplan. Thus the reason why Im upset at Garrett.

Our Oline is not the best. But its not the worst and I believe that Green Bay's oline, from that performance tonight, is just as bad.

However, the coaches adjusted so that the defense couldn't zero in on Rogers. They had him roll outside and use play action. They also ran the ball and threw the defense off guard. Basically, the defense didn't know what Green Bay was going to do thus it neutralized their passrush.

We still have problems on Oline and I know that. But to keep Romo sin the pocket and have plays that takes 5 seconds to develop is just plain stupid. There are things that Garrett can do but he doesn't.

Got to agree with some, GB was getting hammered and made adjustments at half-time. They went to play-action, slants, option, whatever and it was working for the most part. I noticed that if Rodgers didn't hit a receiver within 2.5 secs, he rolled out to buy more time.

Romo does this as well, but he waits longer than that for the most part. We can question it until we are blue in the face, but Garrett would have not done what GB did at half-time. We would have kept doing the same basic 5 plays over and over, hoping for a break. GB still didn't look that great, but it was a 360 compared to the first half. Seattle has a really good defense, not great but solid.

Got to agree with some, GB was getting hammered and made adjustments at half-time. They went to play-action, slants, option, whatever and it was working for the most part. I noticed that if Rodgers didn't hit a receiver within 2.5 secs, he rolled out to buy more time.

Romo does this as well, but he waits longer than that for the most part. We can question it until we are blue in the face, but Garrett would have not done what GB did at half-time. We would have kept doing the same basic 5 plays over and over, hoping for a break. GB still didn't look that great, but it was a 360 compared to the first half. Seattle has a really good defense, not great but solid.

Romo does do that as well. But it seems they are trying to fit his style of play into the scheme, rather than allow him to use his mobility and his elusiveness.

This offense fits better for a dropback pocket passer rather than Romo. Which is why we aren't haven't the success that other teams have like New Orleans and Green Bay. If Romo was in a system like Green Bay, boy he will break some major records.

Exactly my point. They adjusted. They didn't stick to the same gameplan. Thus the reason why Im upset at Garrett.

Our Oline is not the best. But its not the worst and I believe that Green Bay's oline, from that performance tonight, is just as bad.

However, the coaches adjusted so that the defense couldn't zero in on Rogers. They had him roll outside and use play action. They also ran the ball and threw the defense off guard. Basically, the defense didn't know what Green Bay was going to do thus it neutralized their passrush.

We still have problems on Oline and I know that. But to keep Romo sin the pocket and have plays that takes 5 seconds to develop is just plain stupid. There are things that Garrett can do but he doesn't.

The Packers are 2 seasons removed from being a SB winning team and one season removed from being 15-1. They're in a different class than the Cowboys. They got absolutely mauled in the first half vs Seattle but didn't quit. Had that been the Cowboys Romo probably would have been carted off and the game would have been over by halftime. The Cowboys don't have the coaching, the desire or the talent on the OL to withstand an onslaught like GB saw last night in that first half. Like I said the Seattle team I saw last night was breathing a lot more fire than the one the Cowboys saw. They were sky high after stomping the Cowboys and were out to make another statement on Monday Night.

Pete Carrol who's one of the most passionate, emotionally charged coaches in the league and had his team ready to explode. Their pass rush looked like the 85 Bears in that first half. Romo might have hit the deck a dozen times and lost several fumbles had he survived long enough. You can adjust all you want but if your OL is over matched and you don't have a qualified HC nothing will save you against a fired up team like that. I give Rodgers and the Packers a lot of credit for hanging in that first half it took a rob job to beat them in the end.

The Packers are 2 seasons removed from being a SB winning team and one season removed from being 15-1. They're in a different class than the Cowboys. They got absolutely mauled in the first half vs Seattle but didn't quit. Had that been the Cowboys Romo probably would have been carted off and the game would have been over by halftime. The Cowboys don't have the coaching, the desire or the talent on the OL to withstand an onslaught like GB saw last night in that first half. Like I said the Seattle team I saw last night was breathing a lot more fire than the one the Cowboys saw. They were sky high after stomping the Cowboys and were out to make another statement on Monday Night.

Pete Carrol who's one of the most passionate, emotionally charged coaches in the league and had his team ready to explode. Their pass rush looked like the 85 Bears in that first half. Romo might have hit the deck a dozen times and lost several fumbles had he survived long enough. You can adjust all you want but if your OL is over matched and you don't have a qualified HC nothing will save you against a fired up team like that. I give Rodgers and the Packers a lot of credit for hanging in that first half it took a rob job to beat them in the end.

I agree with most of what you said but I still think that coaching is really what separates this team apart more than anything else.

Take a look at the Green Bay offense. We are just as talented as they are. They went 15-1 last year. Well we went 13-3 just a few years back. We have Romo and they have Rogers. They also have a set of explosive receivers and so do we. But the difference is the coaching.

As you saw in the 1st half Rogers was getting killed. Their oline was giving up more sacks then we did vs. the Hawks.

However, the Packers adjusted during halftime. Went with a short game and started to run the ball. The also went with slants, play action, roll outs, etc. Basically, they did everything they could to protect Rogers and it worked.

What we did against the Seahawks was basically what we did in the first half. Even though we were trailing, we stuck with the same gameplan from the 1st half. We didn't adjust to take try to neutralize the passrush of the Seahawks and we looked flat.

Sure we have our Oline problems. But so did Green Bay and possibly worst. What they did is adjust to the defensive pressure by using slants, roll outs and play action. They also mixed their plays to make their attack less predictable. Remember, the announcers said "the thought of running the ball on 1st down is neutralizing the passrush." I couldn't agree more.

Thus my point is that yes we do have an oline issue. But so does many other teams like Green Bay and the Giants. Yet they don't make it an excuse for NOT putting up points and NOT winning.

What happened to the gameplan of the first game when they were worried bout Romo getting sacked. Slants, three step drops, quick outs and such. They spread the defense out and were able run also. Did they all if a sudden forget that this team has a weak oline? But looking at GB tonight it seems to be a problem for not just us.

Exactly this! Took the words right out of my mouth.

Our offense has become "dependant" on the big play because all Garrett chases is the big play. Every overhead shot during each game shows all of our receivers running down field, like way down field without the ball looking for a big pass play.

MEMO TO GARRETT: Get the ball into your playmakers hands, and let them make the play. Jason Witten is not the guy you want to catch a 4yd pass on 3rd and 8, Dez Bryant, Miles Austin or DeMarco Murray are. Let them catch the pass on the move and make a play. Running hitch routes right at the sticks on 3rd and 8 doesn't fool anyone. Green Bay makes a good living running the slant, and we've shown the ability in spurts to do the same. Stop forcing it down field and take what's there, and then when they least expect it, hit the Sluggo...

Where is the JG who called a swing pass to MB3 on 4th down and took it too the house?

I miss that JG. Or the JG who showed trickery and ran certain plays just to set up certain plays later in the game.

I don't know how many times this has been brought up here before, but predictability is not the problem. Everyone in the early 90s knew exactly what this team was going to do but just could not stop them. The major problem here is an offensive line that is worse than some college offensive lines.

Playcalling predictability is overrated. In the 90s we were probably the most predictable team as far as playcalling goes in the NFL. Everyone knew it would be 22 left or 22 right or 22 up the middle once in a while play action to 88 or 84. Didn't matter much when you couldn't stop it. Fact is Witten drops a sure TD that puts the game away early in the 4th quarter. Romo has a bad fumble on a sure scoring drive that again puts the game away earlier. These mistakes are correctable and mistakes you tend to see early in the season. Witten rarely makes that type of drop ever.

Our o-line isn't great, there's issues in the middle right now. But it's still pretty young.

If you go back and watch the old 75 Cowboys, you will see how they kept people guessing. Now I'm not saying run trick plays all the time , just let it be part of the game plan. You watch that flea flicker or Newhouse throw that halfback pass and :laugh1: see the benifit.

Playcalling predictability is overrated. In the 90s we were probably the most predictable team as far as playcalling goes in the NFL.

Dude that was one of the greatest teams of all-time, we had prob the best O-line of all time and had a hall of famer at QB,RB,WR.

We have a top NFL QB now(maybe not the best but he's up there) Top young RB, and some really good receivers and one of the top TEs in the league. Remember we are still young at the line. But again you are forgetting the first game of the year against the Giants , who have the best pass rushing line in the NFL. For the most part Romo had all day to throw against them

We have a top NFL QB now(maybe not the best but he's up there) Top young RB, and some really good receivers and one of the top TEs in the league. Remember we are still young at the line. But again you are forgetting the first game of the year against the Giants , who have the best pass rushing line in the NFL. For the most part Romo had all day to throw against them

On just about every level, the 90s Cowboys were infinitely better than the 2012 Cowboys. To compare them is ridiculous, because obviously predictable playcalling is less of an issue when you have multiple hall-of-famers on your unit.

It's foolish to say playcalling doesn't matter now (when the team is so inferior at multiple positions) simply because it worked decades ago when almost all our players were just better than their opposition. It's apples to oranges.

Predictability becomes a gigantic problem when you're playing Mackenzie Bernadeau, Ryan Cook, Doug Free every week and defenses can easily destroy anything that those guys try to do.

To stick to the philosophy of 'we'll do what we always do, because it SHOULD work' is absolutely ******** when that approach DOESN'T work. At some point, you need to examine your personnel, approach and philosophy and adapt to what you have--not what you used to have or what you want even though you don't have what you need.

You are right the 90s teams were better. But that doesn't change my point. We have top NFL talent at all those positions. I didn't say that our team is better than the 90s team. DeMarco Murray has had big games against some really good defensive lines in his maybe 10 game career. And with the same or lesser talent on the line. Romo has had big games throughout his career with far worse talent on the line. So has Miles Austin. Bryant has still be extremely inconsistent in his career. Witten has been one of the top TEs in the league for a decade. We'll be fine in the long run as long as we keep improving the line.

After rewatching the game a few times I noticed that when we had big plays, Garrett calls for run plays up the middle which would end up as a small gain or a lost. We kept doing this even in the 2nd half.

We ran the ball more than 90% up the middle on 1st down - which mostly gained negative or 1 yard gains in the 1st half.

Tampa played the run almost entirely on 1st down. Now why can't Garrett ever use a play action on 1st down and pass it? We tried 2 play action plays which gained big yardage to Dez.

Also, when we ran Murray we also ran him straight up the middle. Why? We should try and let me run outside the tackles. As far as I can remember, we only ran him once outside the tackles which we got good yardage. However, we can back with the same exact play on 2nd and 3 to Felix Jones which he got tackled for a lost. Why?

Our receivers yesterday were beating their corners quite frequently. However, we kept trying to run the ball with Murray and focusing on Witten on 3rd downs.

These are just a few examples. But our problems on offense has been the lack of consistency. The reason for that is our playcalling. We could have easily move the ball on Tampa yesterday using short to medium passes to our recievers. However, we kept trying to establish the run and kept forcing the ball to Witten.

Every time we had a big play, we kept trying to run the ball - we shot ourselves in the foot by trying to run up the middle on 1st down.

Garrett needs to stop this predictable playcalling and let Romo get some consistency with the offense.

Our predictable is whats causing this mess. When Romo has to change the play using an audible because the defense knows what were going to do, then that causes penalties and confusion to happen.

Thats the reason why we have so pre snap penalties. Just rewatch the game again and you'll notice things get messed up when Romo had to audible.

Garrett, stop making predictable calls. Therefore, we won't have to audible as much and will have an offense that consistent.

The problem with last Sunday's game was the Bucs defensive linemen stopped the inside runs for losses and then when Dallas ran wide they knifed between linemen and caught the running back from behind.

Because we did try to run outside of the tackles.

While I agree Garrett is a fairly predictable culprit in this tale, the results of the Bucs game came in the form of linemen that couldn't block sunshine with a parasol.